CrlP. NO. ________/2002

Written Submission on behalf of the Petitioner

Counsel for the PETITIONER

• Index of Authorities

• Statement of Jurisdiction

• Chronology of Events

• Statement of Facts

• Issues Raised

• Arguments Advanced

• Summary of Arguments

• Prayer

Art ----------------------- Article

CrPC ----------------------- Criminal Procedure Code

CrLJ ----------------------- Criminal Law Journal

HC ----------------------- High Court

No. ----------------------- Number

Vs. ----------------------- Versus

Sec. ----------------------- Section

Govt. ----------------------- Government

The Petitioner brings this case before the Honourable High Court (Moot Court of Pendekanti Law College) in a Petition against the chargesheet filed against the petitioner.

• 16 - 01 - 2002 Intelligence reports about the illegal activities of the

• 12 - 04 - 2002 Large scale communal riot witnessed by the state
• 08 - 09 – 2002 Vandana Verma informed the media persons about the

• 09 - 09 - 2002 Mrs Vandana Verma discussed about the report of the

• 09 - 09 - 2002 Mrs Vandana Verma was arrested and produced

• 09 - 09 - 2002 Mrs Vandana Verma was granted bail by the Magistrate
• 20 - 11 - 2002 Mrs Vandana Verma filed a petition before the High Court of Jayasthan

• 29 – 11 – 2002 The petition was adjudicated by a Full Bench constituted by the

• 07 – 02 – 2003 The case is posted for hearing

Jayasthan is a State in the Indian Union. Raj Prakash is the Chief Minister of the State. Mrs Vandana Verma is a member of the ruling party.

On 16-01-2002 the Inspector General submitted a report on a fundamentalist group ‘Black Tigers’ to the Chief Secretary of the State. This religious fundamentalist group had chalked out a plan for promoting enmity and hatred between different religious groups in the state. The report also consisted 200 names of the black listed persons who should be closely watched. Two MLA s of the ruling party were also listed among the black listed persons. In April 2002 the state did witness a large-scale communal riot.

Mrs Vandana Verma on 08-09-2002 informed the media persons about evidence that she has collected regarding to the failure of the State Government in performing the constitutional duty of maintenance of law and order. On 09-09-2002 she has quoted the report and discussed in the Legislative Assembly. The Chief Minister confirmed the genuineness of the report. After the discussion Mrs Vandana Verma left the Legislative Assembly complex and was proceeding towards the Legislator’s hostel. She was stopped by the Police and arrested by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. On the same day she was produced before First Class Judicial Magistrate and an F.I.R. was filed accusing her of offence under Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act 1923. She was given bail on the same day i.e. 9-9-2002.

On 12-11-2002 the Police forwarded the Final report and charge was framed against her for the commission of offence under the Section 5 (2) of the Official Secrets Act 1923. The police investigation did not have any evidence other than the fact that Mrs Vandana Verma had received an intelligence report.

On 20-11-2002, Mrs Vandana Verma filed a petition before the Honourable High Court of Jayasthan for quashing the Final Report of Police and thus charges against her, exercising the powers of the High Court under the Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner in her petition contended that the criminal case against her was politically motivated. It was further contended that since she has the privileges under Art. 194 (2) of the Constitution, no action could be taken against her.

Is the report a secret report or a secret document, the discussion of which might or will affect the interests of the state or security of the state or Sovereignty and Integrity of the State?

Does the Deputy Commissioner of Police have the authority to arrest a member of the Legislative Assembly for quoting and discussing a report at the Assembly?

Whether the Section 5 has been correctly interpreted in this case or no?

Whether Art. 194 (2) has been applied before the framing charges against the petitioner?

Whether Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be applied?

The intelligence reports about the illegal activities of ‘Black Tigers’, submitted in January was ignored by the Government, had been quoted in certain newspapers. The Opposition Parties also strongly criticized the inaction of the Government in preventing the riot. The report was already publicly quoted and referred by certain newspapers and the Opposition Parties.

Therefore, the quoting and discussion of the report in the Assembly by the Petitioner will not affect the interests of the state or security of the state or sovereignty and integrity of the state or public order.

Hence, it is submitted that the report is not a secret report or a secret document.

The Deputy Commissioner of Police has no authority to arrest a Member of Legislative Assembly for quoting and discussing a report in the Assembly and has exceeded his limits of jurisdiction. The discussion of the report in the Assembly does not amount to any crime.

Hence, it is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Police has no authority to arrest an MLA.

Section 5 (1) clearly states that any person having in his possession or control any secret official code or password or any sketch plan, model, article note, document or information which relates to or is used in a prohibited place or relates to anything in such a place or which is likely to assist, directly or indirectly an enemy or which relates to matter the disclosure of which is likely to affect the integrity or sovereignty of the state, security of the state or friendly relation with foreign states or which has been made or obtained in contravention of the Act ……..

The report quoted and discussed is not a secret report or secret document the quoting or discussing or disclosure of which is not going to affect the integrity and sovereignty of the state or security of the state or public order. Therefore the Police has wrongly interpreted Section 5 of the Official Secret Act 1923.

Hence, it is submitted that Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act 1923 has been wrongly interpreted.

Art. 194 (2) clearly states that no member of the Legislature of a state shall be liable to any proceeding in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the legislature or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.

Hence, it is submitted that Art. 194 (2) of the Constitution has not been applied and has violated the constitutional provision under Art 194 (2) of the Constitution of India.

Section 482 clearly states that nothing in this code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Since there is no evidence in the Final Report other than the fact that the petitioner had received an intelligence report which is not a secret document or secret report as mentioned in the previous issues, Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure to prevent the abuse of the process of the Honourable Court can be applied.

Hence, it is submitted that Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure can be applied.

In the aforesaid circumstance, I pray the Honourable High Court to quash the Final Report of Police and thus charges against the Petitioner.